Hi everyone! I'm opening a new dedicated thread related to photos in the pre-screening process and will be adding new photos in this thread to provide feedback on any improvements in these photos.

Here are my first three in this thread:
American A321 with all rejections addressed from #4939503 (blurry, compression, noise, quality, and soft):
-https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/4/4/5102441.jpg?v=v446f0b307dd
Frontier A320 with all rejections addressed from #5025605 (blurry, noise, quality, and soft):
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b1e6bf4180
Delta B752 (first upload of this angle):
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d52067ac1f

Let me know what you guys think of these photos!

Hi,

Unfortunately the AA 321 is not going to be fixable, same goes for the F9 320, they're both blurry. Delta 752 is very noisy, has blotchiness on the fuselage, and looks blurry as well. I don't believe its in your best interest to attempt to fix any of these, sorry. Try to start off with sunny shots, those require less editing and tend to be of higher quality out of the camera.

DL747 wrote:

Hi,

Unfortunately the AA 321 is not going to be fixable, same goes for the F9 320, they're both blurry. Delta 752 is very noisy, has blotchiness on the fuselage, and looks blurry as well. I don't believe its in your best interest to attempt to fix any of these, sorry. Try to start off with sunny shots, those require less editing and tend to be of higher quality out of the camera.

Thanks for the feedback, Preston; I feel like the F9 A320 also has a nose section that is also blown out when adjusting to the desired exposure setting, despite the sun taken behind my back when shooting these photos. Seems like I will delete the Frontier A320 from the queue, as well as the other two that are dark to the point where editing complications come to arise.

I have two photos of the American B789 uploaded to the airliners.net queue: one in takeoff and one with a close-up shot of the tail:

Whole aircraft on takeoff roll:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6be251dab1

Close-up shot of the tail:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4251506f9d

Any feedback is greatly appreciated!

1: heathaze.
2: underexposed and quite noisy.

Thanks Kas; will edit the tail close-up photo but throw in the towel for the other AA B789 photo.

And before I start re-working on the close-up tail (since the double rule applies); I have uploaded the photo of the same aircraft taxiing with all rejection reasons addressed (low contrast, oversharpened, and underexposed):
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 04c2f490a9

The AA B789 looks very grainy and underexposed. Lighting on the fuselage is very harsh. I doubt I'd stick with editing that one unfortunately.

What camera do you use? Out of curiosity.

I use a Nikon D5000 DSLR camera; thanks for the feedback on that AA B789 photo, though!

I have now recently reuploaded an AA ERJ-145 for the second time after a rejection for oversharpened and overexposed photo:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c88d52e607

I have also reuploaded the close-up photo of an AA B789 tail with further noise reduction and increased exposure:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7d0b50928a

I have one more reupload of the whole aircraft of the AA B789, addressing the oversharpened and noise rejections:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 10e3615b82

I will delete either the photo of the whole aircraft or the tail close-up photo, pending any opinions from either photo.

And for the last two for this round, I have a DL B752 photo and a WN B737 (Louisiana One) photo that were re-edited in terms of increased exposure and noise reduction:

DL B752:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 072fbe9caf

WN B737 (Louisiana One):
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0c58c27daa

Envoy ERJ looks still overexposed due to what I assume is a reflection of the light on the fuselage, and blurry in places, AA 789 tail is suffering from heat haze. Whole AA 789 is overall poor quality, noisy, dark and also looks heat hazed. Delta 752 looks blurry, WN 73G is oversharpened in places, noisy. What ISO are you using? These seem excessively noisy for conditions, thinking maybe its an in-camera setting.

DL747 wrote:

Envoy ERJ looks still overexposed due to what I assume is a reflection of the light on the fuselage, and blurry in places, AA 789 tail is suffering from heat haze. Whole AA 789 is overall poor quality, noisy, dark and also looks heat hazed. Delta 752 looks blurry, WN 73G is oversharpened in places, noisy. What ISO are you using? These seem excessively noisy for conditions, thinking maybe its an in-camera setting.

While I don't pay attention to the ISO at all, from the terminal shots at DFW, I have these photos automatically set at an ISO of 400. What is the ideal ISO when shooting photos of moving aircraft outdoors (rather than from inside)?

ISO 400 is too high of a setting for images being taken in broad daylight outdoors. ISO 200 between f/8 and f/11 is usually the normal setting.

You could also try to shoot in manual focus to lessen the chance of getting motion blur.

Runway28L wrote:

ISO 400 is too high of a setting for images being taken in broad daylight outdoors. ISO 200 between f/8 and f/11 is usually the normal setting.

You could also try to shoot in manual focus to lessen the chance of getting motion blur.

I usually don't do manual focus as I worry about how precise my focus would be in a short time to take good quality photos of moving aircraft. As for the ISO settings for outdoor spotting, I haven't got a chance to check the ISO on those unedited photos on the DSLR; will have to check the ISO on these photos to make sure that the ISO is at ISO 200 between f/8 and f/11.

While I wouldn't say 400 is automatically too high, I don't think a sunny day should necessitate 400, especially on a 5xxx series, which can be noisy above 200. I'd advise against manual focus, since some of your shots have questionable focus. As you said, with fast moving aircraft and not much time, at least start with auto mode. I'd say for an average day, ISO100-200, f/7.1-f/11, and 1/250-1/1000 depending on aircraft type (eg prop blur, rotor etc), is a good place to start.

DL747 wrote:

While I wouldn't say 400 is automatically too high, I don't think a sunny day should necessitate 400, especially on a 5xxx series, which can be noisy above 200. I'd advise against manual focus, since some of your shots have questionable focus. As you said, with fast moving aircraft and not much time, at least start with auto mode. I'd say for an average day, ISO100-200, f/7.1-f/11, and 1/250-1/1000 depending on aircraft type (eg prop blur, rotor etc), is a good place to start.

Thanks Preston! I will keep ISO 200 in mind when plane spotting in sunny weather in the near future!

fsx98 wrote:

Runway28L wrote:

ISO 400 is too high of a setting for images being taken in broad daylight outdoors. ISO 200 between f/8 and f/11 is usually the normal setting.

You could also try to shoot in manual focus to lessen the chance of getting motion blur.

I usually don't do manual focus as I worry about how precise my focus would be in a short time to take good quality photos of moving aircraft. As for the ISO settings for outdoor spotting, I haven't got a chance to check the ISO on those unedited photos on the DSLR; will have to check the ISO on these photos to make sure that the ISO is at ISO 200 between f/8 and f/11.

I just got home and checked the ISO value of the original photos of aircraft on my DSLR and they're at ISO 200 f/8.

I personally use ISO100-160 and F8-10 on sunny days, but ISO200 should be well fine too (depending on camera a little of course).

airkas1 wrote:

I personally use ISO100-160 and F8-10 on sunny days, but ISO200 should be well fine too (depending on camera a little of course).

Have to agree with Kas. I was having issues with my pictures and he suggested the same range so now I mainly shoot F9, ISO100 and 1/400 on sunny days and haven't had nearly as many issues I was having. His suggestion was a huge help to me!

ChrisLait wrote:

airkas1 wrote:

I personally use ISO100-160 and F8-10 on sunny days, but ISO200 should be well fine too (depending on camera a little of course).

Have to agree with Kas. I was having issues with my pictures and he suggested the same range so now I mainly shoot F9, ISO100 and 1/400 on sunny days and haven't had nearly as many issues I was having. His suggestion was a huge help to me!

Something I didn't realize until I referred to the Photo Acceptance Guide:
https://www.airliners.net/faq/photo_acceptance_guide/

I'll keep ISO 200 in mind when plane spotting in sunny weather!

The guide is a bit outdated though.

I have reuploaded the Envoy ERJ with the exposure toned down a little bit but also addressing rejections from last upload:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d26c96159b

I also have uploaded another photo of an AA B789 (N830AN) in a different angle (last one!); highly doubt that it would make it due to reflection of the aircraft on one spot:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 54a27bb3b1

Any opinions of these photos are greatly appreciated!

Both appear to be of poor quality, Envoy may have a shot at 1024 but looks soft/blurryish/heat hazed. AA 789 is grainy, heat hazed, oversharpened, and soft. That one will almost certainly not make it.

Hi,

unfortunately I can only echo that. The AA 789 is extremely grainy in the sky (extremely considering it was shot in bright daylight).
What kind of setting did you use? In such bright conditions I would only shoot with ISO100.
In combination with underexposure even ISO200 can lead to quite some grain, perhaps not on a full frame cam, but surely on a 1200D.
What will further increase grain is sharpening of the sky and adding saturation on post-processing (which I wouldn’t recommend anyway).

Other than that it is heavily oversharpened (maybe to compensate for blurriness) and the quality doesn’t seem great.
I am sorry to say, but I would drop that one.

Julien

Thanks guys! I'll drop the AA B789 photos (except the tail close-up, in which I'll give a try) from the queue; will give the Envoy ERJ a shot again after editing to 1024!

AA tail is heat hazed, noisy, and borderline blurry in spots, but at your own risk...

DL747 wrote:

AA tail is heat hazed, noisy, and borderline blurry in spots, but at your own risk...

Before I delete the AA tail from queue, is the heat haze below the underside of the tail section, where it is also blurry? I had a second look and feel like it's there.

I have recently redone the Envoy ERJ by resizing it to 1024 pixels in width; other than that, every fix from the last rejection to the one recently removed from queue were applied.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f1d69448fd

RE heat haze, it appears to be everywhere to me. Up the tail, notice how the lines aren't straight, and the registration looks wavy, as does the cargo door. ERJ is still soft/blurry/noisy to me.

DL747 wrote:

ERJ is still soft/blurry/noisy to me.

Not that noisy for me, but agree with soft/blurry.

airkas1 wrote:

DL747 wrote:

ERJ is still soft/blurry/noisy to me.

Not that noisy for me, but agree with soft/blurry.

If fixing blurry and soft at the same time cannot be done, I'm guessing that this shot of the ERJ is a no-go, along with the AA B789 tail that is rumored to have heat haze and other editing issues, if any?

I would say the chances of either making it are slim to none. Blurry cannot be fixed, nor can heat haze.

While you're trying to dial in your eye for what is acceptable here, I'd advise you to start with some better material. Go out to your local airport and ensure that:

The sun is at your back
It's not within 3 hours of noon
You're not shooting through windows
The subject is close
The subject is moving slowly, if at all
ISO 100
f/8
1/400 shutter minimum

If heat haze is an issue even in the morning/evening, you can try shooting approaches at close range, if your airport and equipment allows.

Kaphias wrote:

While you're trying to dial in your eye for what is acceptable here, I'd advise you to start with some better material. Go out to your local airport and ensure that:

The sun is at your back
It's not within 3 hours of noon
You're not shooting through windows
The subject is close
The subject is moving slowly, if at all
ISO 100
f/8
1/400 shutter minimum

If heat haze is an issue even in the morning/evening, you can try shooting approaches at close range, if your airport and equipment allows.

I did happen to plane spot within three hours of noon and shooting through windows since I was plane spotting from the terminal (I was making a connection back home from ABQ at the time and had time to plane spot); some of the photos that I took and edited did got accepted under certain conditions (subject is close and moving slowly) and in all cases, the sun was always at my back.

I have re-uploaded an AAL B772 previously rejected for common, underexposed, noise, and quality, now with the increased exposure and further noise reduction; let me know what your opinions are on this one.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a1eddd1e04

I have also uploaded an Envoy Air ERJ-145 (N902BC) in a different angle from the previously rejected photo of the same registration; again, let me know what your opinions are on this one.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 62c2631062

And here's one more photo of an AAL CRJ-900 (N952LR) taxiing; once again, any opinions are greatly appreciated!

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4abe360c93

One more reuploaded photo previously rejected for overexposed, low contrast, and soft: an Envoy Air CRJ-700 taxiing for takeoff at COU:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4ac583978c

N784AN: still not great with the reflection and lightwise not super (with the nose in the shadow and the other half in the sun). Marginal. I'd let it go to be honest.
N902BC: blurry and hazed nose, quality
N952LR: heat haze, blurry tail, quality
N517AE: passable

N517AE has a yellow/green cast, too much saturation (grass looks unnatural) and oversharped.

Thanks guys! Will delete all from the queue except N517AE, for now; will do some editing for N517AE before deciding on whether to keep the originally edited photo in queue or to replace that photo with the re-edited photo that is sharpened less and color settings corrected.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

N517AE has a yellow/green cast, too much saturation (grass looks unnatural) and oversharped.

N517AE photo update: I have deleted the originally edited photo from the queue and reuploaded the same photo with color correction and lessened sharpening from the last originally edited photo. I agreed with the deleted photo that has saturated coloring and felt that the re-uploaded photo gives a more natural look.

Here is the reuploaded photo below:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 065a084e0c

Sky is a little noisy, but looks pretty good to me.

Hi everyone! I have just returned from ABQ and took some of those pictures while flying to ABQ on August 9th; here they are:

ZW CRJ2 N429AW: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 624a176980
YV CRJ9 N939LR (front): https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5be1acc7bb
YV CRJ9 N939LR (cockpit): https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 95cfd86c71
AA MD83 N9624T: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 09c8714145
AA B772 N794AN: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 48f8cfa829
AA B772 N791AN: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a693b2d8ca
UP B763 N360UP: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 563f74e5a9
FX B763 N163FE: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3278b8fe91
AA MD82 N426AA: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a2fb73be3a

Let me know what you guys think! More photos to come soon!

UPDATE: FedEx 767 rejected for blurry, oversharpened, high in frame, and CCW rotation and YV CRJ9 (front) rejected for soft and underexposed; most likely throwing out the FedEx 767, as blurry isn't fixable; will fix the YV CRJ9 (front) photo as I could easily fix soft and underexposed

Here are two more photos from my recent trip to ABQ:

Window view of N426AA: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a2fb73be3a
N732SK: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 61e053b369

Ok, so from the top disregarding the blurry FX. N429AW, looks backlit/harsh light, probably a no-go, also possibly flat and a little heat hazed. AA CRJ head on looks a little soft, again harsh light. CRJ cockpit looks blurry/out of focus in spots and windows are blown out. S80 tail looks noisy, dark, and flat. N794AN looks very noisy, possibly OS in areas. N791AN looks very noisy. N360UP appears noisy/compressed, blurry, soft. S80 cockpit looks blurry and blown out windows. N732SK appears dark, harsh, noisy, not the greatest light.

Thanks for the feedback, Preston; I did remove the photo of N429AW as I found obvious backlighting; I'm in the process of priority uploading the head on photo of the AA CRJ after numerous edits, as this would be the first photo of N939LR in the American Eagle livery to the database; I have attempted to fix the S80 tail and re-uploaded it; I have fixed the noisy and OS in the N794AN photo and also re-uploaded it; I have fixed the noise of the N791AN photo but did not re-upload it yet, as I'm waiting for official screeners' opinion; as for the N360UP, I haven't got the opportunity to fix the photo yet, but again, I'm going to wait for screeners' opinion; I have re-edited the N732SK photo and re-uploaded it; as for cockpit shots, I don't think that the CRJ cockpit photo will make it; the S80 cockpit looks blurry in some areas, but I'm waiting for screener's guidance of whether it could still pass with any cropping done or let the S80 cockpit go.

Here are the re-uploaded photos:
S80 tail: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1a365d06d0
N794AN: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7dc392e703
N732SK: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c76ca7a640

And here are the newly uploaded photos:
Window (not cockpit view) of N426AA: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ee25b869e8
N939LR (same AA CRJ9, different angle): https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4119353938